PCA'vVioVT'CY' PCoSeX QiA.es Ar\oV) 4-o 4Vi iX HoWalTabl-e Coutr+r-e_«jcmndiub £\V)&) TuSe-wienP under W3hf ox DuePPoCeXx
tlaUie oX 'The. 14 Vh. Anai end v^oi-P o-P EWe. ConX4-i4-u-Mon.

-LSSUE ' JL £_QU i+a lo t-€. X-oU'WSJ on A L-\V>-ex4y x^u-e,
Xne, AbUi-vy o-P +ke xm + i3£^-*- 4-o Col/abo f'u+e
£x:erct\s<x bu-e. DUiaence, -Prow) -xn-M-i+m-ioh xn Adwin
SesTegoyfi ow.

XSSU€_:A. Wi4X 're^ec4- 4-o £>ix ry o-F -Pibal 7M^3t^enf
XU 4WiX Ac4-ioh -PailUife oE DiSEWcx Caur-i-Xo
CerAi-Py awy AP^eilale f?-e\A'e.ux

-£u vi d €_n4a I \»V)€_c4y XXX Me. Pe.T-Puin iT'ljj 7o
process CI <xus-e_ o x \ 4 -Pn . Avn er* o( /n -ev\ 4~~

A^SUEr- 3. PeAiXkmtx -Piled <x -AVnely response, -Po^c^^
cxw 4 exAen^ i'oh D i rexV eJ cwv d cJ fyVh c9 S 4- r a 4 e o/ d u-£L ol { l
iSence in PurXuiMx?j a liloenvy liSue- C)rvr>res~
ev>4-6 4-Kij coWn-wiw, -Pun 4 evn-en-PcU liloerpy issues*
needed 4o o\/crCo^c D iXEricx CouPEx
SumvncW 'y Xud Sen^eM- loosed
-14 ^wl^. 6?o Clo ■)

X-SSUE. ^. oYuftiWflt issue oP EundemeioEal (AerEy xssi+e_
oc\Sed on SuEEvcency o-P evidence A/c^r el ec.'J ed o{s + ric4-co^V4-oPu-e.4o procedural 4Uw!f fres^
4-s cv UWriv lS5uc.

XSSUEj pe-Ci-Pioner oE'c

Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's case with prejudice and failing to certify any issue for appellate review, depriving petitioner of due process under the 4th Amendment